Anyone see any wiggle room there? Have the actions of these two radical Islamic organizations, and their many cousins, demonstrated that they don't mean what they say?
As I have previously -- and repeatedly -- noted, the pressure from the United States ought not to be on Israel, which has mostly lived up to every agreement -- from Oslo, to Madrid, to Wye River. U.S. pressure should be directed at those bent on Israel's destruction. Israel's enemies lost land through military action aimed at destroying Israel. They are winning it back through diplomacy, pressure and terrorist acts carried out by their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel's enemies have used this newly acquired land to launch attacks.
Gaza is the latest example. Israel unilaterally ceded Gaza to the Palestinians, which has been used as a terrorist base for firing missiles at civilians inside Israel. Why would anyone think that additional concessions, including an autonomous Palestinian state, would deter Islamic extremists from fulfilling the mandates of their charters?
For people who regard any presence by Jews on "Muslim land" as a religious and personal affront and negotiations with "infidels" (that would be we American "crusaders" and the "Zionist entity") as against the will of their god, why should they be expected to compromise on a matter of doctrinal "truth"?
The Palestinians will deserve a state when they and their Arab-Muslim supporters prove by their actions and a reconsideration of their religious doctrines that they are prepared to allow Israel to exist in peace and have no intention of flooding a Palestinian state with "refugees" who might very well be used to finish the job so many of them wish Hitler had completed.
The question Netanyahu should ask President Obama is whether the United States wants to sustain the first democracy in the Middle East or whether it wishes to create another terrorist state?
NYT Editoral Board: The Indictment Against Rick Perry "Appears" to be "Overzealous" | Daniel Doherty